Raymond Rodriguez v. Eli Lilly and Company
820 F.3d 759
5th Cir.2016Background
- Raymond Rodriguez worked for Eli Lilly as a pharmaceutical sales representative (2012–2013) and had a diagnosed disability (PTSD).
- After a supervisor change in April 2013, a coworker (Syreeta Barrett) reported that Rodriguez encouraged falsifying doctor-visit reports, misreported attendees at reimbursed meals, and ignored TempTale refrigeration alarms; HR investigated and verified multiple allegations.
- During the investigation Rodriguez acknowledged some errors (called one a clerical error), denied TempTale alarms, and was found to have been untruthful; his supervisor Ramos reported concerns he was unstable.
- Rodriguez applied for FMLA leave between Sept. 18 and Oct. 17, 2013; his FMLA leave was approved on Oct. 17, 2013 — the same day Eli Lilly terminated him following the investigation.
- Rodriguez sued for FMLA retaliation and ADA discrimination/retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment to Eli Lilly; on appeal Rodriguez challenged only ADA discrimination and FMLA retaliation claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether comments by Ramos/Bills and Ramos’s remark that Rodriguez was "unstable" constitute direct evidence of ADA discrimination | Ramos’s April 2013 remark about difficulty supervising Rodriguez (because of PTSD) and her later comment about instability show discriminatory animus | Remarks were not temporally proximate or directly tied to the termination and require inference, so they are not direct evidence | Court: Not direct evidence — temporal gap and need for inference preclude direct-evidence status |
| Whether Rodriguez made out a prima facie ADA discrimination case under McDonnell Douglas and showed pretext | Even if prima facie case established, the employer’s stated reasons were pretext for disability-based discrimination | Eli Lilly offered five legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for termination (falsified physician visit, meal-expense violations, TempTale failures, untruthfulness, encouraging coworker misconduct); Rodriguez failed to rebut these as false | Court: Rodriguez did not produce sufficient evidence that Eli Lilly’s reasons were pretext; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether Rodriguez established FMLA retaliation (causal link and pretext) | Proximity in time between FMLA request/approval and termination supports causation; termination thus was retaliation | Employer’s same legitimate reasons for termination defeat inference of retaliatory motive; plaintiff must show pretext for these reasons | Court: Even accepting temporal proximity, Rodriguez failed to show pretext; FMLA retaliation claim fails |
| Whether any disputed facts create a triable issue (i.e., material issues of credibility or falsity of reasons) | Some testimony (e.g., about TempTale reliability, rarity of meal write-ups) raises doubts about credibility of employer’s reasons | Plaintiff did not contest several reasons or present evidence refuting key allegations (falsified visit, coworker’s accusations, untruthfulness) | Court: No genuine dispute of material fact on pretext; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Kemp v. Holder, 610 F.3d 231 (5th Cir.) (summary-judgment standard review)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S.) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- EEOC v. LHC Grp., Inc., 773 F.3d 688 (5th Cir.) (ADA analysis and McDonnell Douglas application)
- Reed v. Neopost USA, Inc., 701 F.3d 434 (5th Cir.) (four-part test for direct-evidence workplace remarks)
- Auguster v. Vermilion Par. Sch. Bd., 249 F.3d 400 (5th Cir.) (requirements for remark to be direct evidence)
- Sandstad v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc., 309 F.3d 893 (5th Cir.) (definition of direct evidence requires no inference)
- Laxton v. Gap Inc., 333 F.3d 572 (5th Cir.) (false employer explanations can support inference of discrimination)
- McCoy v. City of Shreveport, 492 F.3d 551 (5th Cir.) (plaintiff must rebut each nondiscriminatory reason)
- Wheat v. Fla. Par. Juvenile Justice Comm’n, 811 F.3d 702 (5th Cir.) (FMLA retaliation analyzed under McDonnell Douglas)
- Mauder v. Metro. Transit Auth. of Harris Cty., 446 F.3d 574 (5th Cir.) (causation standard for temporal proximity)
- Berquist v. Wash. Mut. Bank, 500 F.3d 344 (5th Cir.) (temporal proximity examples considered insufficient)